Top Social Icons

Responsive Full Width Ad

Left Sidebar
Left Sidebar
Featured News
Right Sidebar
Right Sidebar

Friday, 16 November 2018

IPOB: ANALYSING JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO'S RULING AGAINST NNAMDI KANU'S SURETIES

ANALYSING JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO'S RULING AGAINST NNAMDI KANU'S SURETIES

There is absolutely no disputation that Justice Binta Nyako's decision on the sureties of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on Wednesday 14th November 2018 was mastermindedly  concluded to ensure that they are found guilty and persecuted. This stems from the body language of the court, tinkering with the law to have them provide one hundred million naira (N100,000,000) bail bond each, in two months time and produce Mazi Nnamdi Kanu within six months. It is criminal, laughable and shamefully callous that the same Nigerian government that charged him to court under trumped up charge of treasonable felony amongst others, also turned around through the instrumentality of the military, to institute assassination attempt on his life in his father's residence at Afara-ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State, while yet serving his bail. He miraculously escaped that dastardly act which took place under the guise of murderous military expedition tagged Operation Python Dance II.

With the recent legal drama which surprisingly unfolded in the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, it then becomes clear that even herself was well aware of that despotic and bloody military exercise. It is absolutely the duty of the court to not only provide security to it's property which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu represents, but to courageously query the rationale behind the immediate/remote actors of such a misnomer.

The Nigerian government which mandated the army to unleash such a deadly onslaught against an armless individual, ought to have been made by now, to face the full weight of the law even in a civilised democracy. Lieutenant-General Tukur Yusuf Buratai, the Nigerian army chief of staff, his vampiric colleagues and all the accomplices involved needed to have proactively been cautioned to stay away from the defendant as it is the inalienable responsibility of the court to determine what happens under the circumstance. This Nnamdi Kanu's case is a high profile  one that needed extreme caution by all.

It is presumed that Justice Binta Nyako as the presiding judge, is versed in law and therefore, should unbiasedly and courageously allow due process to take it's course in this case. She should not yield to the threats and inducing vagaries of the Nigerian government. Such a statement accredited to her like: "I will make my order clear on this, it is not a threat. The sureties have failed to provide the first defendant (Nnamdi Kanu) in court. I have discovered that he is not with the Nigerian army and you have failed on your part to provide him as demanded", is most regrettably callous and careless. This statement from a supposedly enlightened and reputable judge is to say the least, very disappointing. And the questions here are: why is Justice Binta Nyako not questioning the Nigerian army on it's assassination attempt on the life of the defendant? Why was the invasion of his residence orchestrated and who authorized it? Putting yourself in the position of the sureties coupled with the despicable incident that transpired, what would be your expectation from the presiding judge on the matter?

Using your position as a presiding judge over the case out of the context of civilised legal approach, to compel the sureties to pay the bail bond without firstly hearing from them, you should note that the court is duty bound to find out from them the reason behind their inability to produce the defendant. The expression that the court is obligated not to know the reason why the sureties cannot come with the first accused is prejudice and erroneous. Refusing to have them make their submissions before ruling is synonymous with dispensing jungle justice on a presumed offender without hearing from him/her. Justice Binta Nyako should note that a very definitive message has been passed to the global community via that her unintelligent ruling which definitely must be challenged.

"Barrister Umeh, I do not like your voice". "I am not interested in what you are saying". These are exceptionally disgusting statements proceeding out of a judge who claims to be unbiased and reputable. Her ruling is suggestive of the fact that an agreement has already been reached with the Nigerian government, which is essentially designed to miscarry justice on the final analysis.

Written by Prince Dan

Edited by Peter Oshagwu
For Family Writers Press

1 comment

Responsive Full Width Ad

Copyright © 2018 The Biafra Herald